Religion doesn't confer right to discriminate

Published 10:00 pm, Friday, October 26, 2007

(Editor's Note: This column has been altered. The original version of this column misstated the name of the group Concerned Women for America in the opening paragraph.)

Two bills -- HR 3685 and 3686, which should be one bill -- seek to give gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered protection from discrimination in the workplace. Naturally, President Bush indicated that he'll veto the bills (assuming they go that far), a move groups such as Concerned Women for America applaud. A statement from the administration (on 3685) indicates that his main issue with the bill is that it "is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act." So, being a Christian means you get to deny people jobs based on what goes on in their pants when they're not at work?

"We would oppose any bill that would grant preferred suspect minority status based upon social sexual behaviors," says Matt Barber, a spokesperson for the CWA. He adds that there's "no history of systematic discrimination" against the LGBT community, which he also calls a powerful political lobby. Oh, right. The Rainbow Mafia. A group so mighty that you can beat the tar out of one of them without getting charged with a hate crime. Now that's power.

Latest videos

Although both bills provide exemptions for religious organizations (schools, churches, etc.), Barber feels that homosexual behavior is immoral, and that it ought not be protected at the expense of freedom of religion. He doesn't say how working with a homosexual would violate his right to be a Christian, but he's certain that having to "associate" with one somehow would. I'd understand (though disagree) with his objection to gay marriage, but gay employment?

Things are changing, though, says Walter Walsh, a University of Washington prof specializing in constitutional law. "The switch has been flipped here. The federal government ... wants to be protective of gays and lesbians," as opposed to just leaving it up to local governments. "And now the claims are coming from the other direction." But first, it must be determined if a law outlawing sexual orientation discrimination in employment is capable of violating someone's freedom of religion. Walsh runs down a list of cases to point out pockets of success for gay rights groups (at least in terms of advancing the dialogue) -- Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and Gay Rights Coalition v. Georgetown University. He's working on a book about the Georgetown case, where it was determined that the government had a compelling reason to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that not doing so would rob (gay) students of tangible benefits. That, says Walsh, is the key: Does the burden imposed on Christians outweigh the tangible benefits of a gay or transgendered person being employed? What's the least restrictive way of balancing both?

To some this fight has nothing to do with Christians fearing occupying the desk next to Tom the Tranny. "I think this kind of legislation is primarily symbolic," said Mark Smith, associate professor of political science at the UW. "This is kind of a proxy for that bigger struggle, it's one front of the war," says Smith, who specializes in American domestic politics. The right wing justifies discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation while race and religion are protected. Smith wonders how those who see gender identity and sexual orientation as choices ("I think most scientists would disagree with them on that score," he says) deal with the choice of (or the conversion to) a certain faith? Why is that a protected choice? I asked this of CWA's Barber and got nowhere.

Related Stories

While on KUOW's "Weekday" with Steve Scher last week, panelists (including yours truly) were discussing Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's hypocrisy when a listener called in. "I feel that people like me, gays and lesbians, I feel like our lives are being played with," said "Sarah," a married transsexual female with a family. "We live in this country too, we're productive members of society and we are not recognized equally and that bothers me a lot." What can you say to that?

Somehow, "Sorry. A person's right to discriminate against you based on religious beliefs supersedes your most basic civil rights" doesn't cut it.